Portable fuel cells arrive: Will your next battery be a water fountain?

Share This article

Batteries and chargers are the bane of a high-tech lifestyle. For each new device there is usually a new size battery, a new charger, and a new set of concerns about battery life. And then comes the quest for an AC power outlet to fire them all up. For years the industry has been searching for some type of “holy grail” that would allow road warriors to travel freely without being slaves to power sockets and backup batteries. Solar was the first candidate, but portable solar cells have limited power output, and of course only work when the sun is shining.

Portable fuel cells have been billed as the ultimate solution for several years now. Unfortunately, early pioneers like Jadoo have had trouble achieving the small size and low cost needed to make their products ubiquitous. One reason is that most current fuel cell products rely on hydrogen storage, often in refillable canisters. Direct hydrogen storage adds complexity and isn’t practical for small units or truly remote applications.

Enter Signa Chemistry, which provides a clever way of using a powder, sodium silicide, plus water, to generate hydrogen on the fly. The hydrogen is mixed with air in the fuel cell itself, combining to create electricity and water. The hydrogen produced by SiGNa’s fuel can be used to power a traditional fuel cell, from briefcase-sized models from Jadoo down to a tiny hand-held version from Swedish company MyFC. The hand-held model is being introduced to the US market this spring, under the name PowerTrekk — and is designed for portable re-charging of smartphones or other small electronic devices. The PowerTrekk can output up to four watts, allowing it to directly power almost any smartphone, even if it’s dead.

The PowerTrekk will be available from REI for $199 for the base unit. Fuel “pucks” will be sold in packages of three for $12. Each PowerPukk has the equivalent power capacity of 6 AA batteries, at a similar cost but much higher power than alkaline cells. Compared to long-life rechargeable NiMH AA batteries that’s not much of a saving, but compared to the throw-away high-power Lithium AA batteries needed as a power source for running many modern smartphones, it is a bargain.

In larger units, like its briefcase-sized DPS300, Signa is able to claim that its fuel cell-driven power supplies are more cost-effective than rechargeable Lithium batteries — like those currently used to power computers and electric cars. They’re also lighter. As an example, Signa provided this analysis of using its briefcase unit for 30 full charges:

For now, the PowerTrekk is clearly as much of a lifestyle product — it comes in a choice of red, yellow or green — as a practical alternative to rechargeable batteries. It’ll take some improvements before it really becomes a mainstream alternative — although Apple has been reported to be looking at fuel cells to power future Mac models. But the DPS300 is already being ordered by organizations including USAID for vaccination clinics in remote areas. It is lighter and less expensive for it to use a DPS300 fuel cell and supply of sodium silicate than it is to drag along a generator — and it is certainly more environmentally friendly.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

Anonymous

It’s a lot better than current alternatives, but it still seems like frustratingly low energy density to me. The device as a whole is about 3x the size of a cell phone based on the first image. A standard cell phone has a 1100-1500mAh battery which charges at 4.2V. Since each puck provides 4Wh of energy (from the PowerTrekk website), a single puck will only give you 950mAh (50-75%) charge on a phone (you’ll still be burning a bit of energy during charging assuming that the phone is powered on.)

Of course, as I said, it’s still a lot better than carrying around large quantities of AAs. But for myself, when I travel extensively, I’ll just stay with having 2 or 3 spare rechargeable cell phone batteries for my phone. They’ll take up half as much space, cost about $1.50/kWh including initial purchase price, and when swapped, provide full power instantly without a tether and separate device.

http://www.cardinalphoto.com David Cardinal

The small version is definitely something of a lifestyle statement at $199, but I was intrigued by the pretty compelling numbers on the larger DPS300. I’ve carried small generators around & used them for various photo projects, and I’d sure rather have a quiet, non-exhaust product that used a safe powdered fuel instead of gasoline!

http://profile.yahoo.com/6G2IL3MJNDXSYMESKE225EEGZI R B

David, the interesting thing is there was a tech company which was working on portable fuel cells for electronics back in 2000, but 9/11 came and they aborted research, knowing they couldn’t get them through airport security. I am actually working on a column about it, but feel free to check out this article I wrote about the Greening of Apple– http://www.richmakesyourich.com/2012/02/green-apple-all-part-of-profit-pie.html

Lupius

Boat load of fail in this one. Water is a by-product of the reaction, not a fuel source.
2 H2 + O2 -> H2O + e-

http://www.cardinalphoto.com David Cardinal

Lupius–You need to read that paragraph more completely. Water is an input in the case of this device. The PowerTrekk (and the DPS300) use water + the chemical fuel to form the hydrogen, which the article goes on to say is fed to the fuel cell half of the device which produces water and electricity. Thanks for adding the chemical equation though!

http://youronline.biz/ Jacko

Pretty cool but seems like high priced batteries I’m more interested in the renewable energy sources like sunlight or magnets.

http://www.cardinalphoto.com David Cardinal

Jacko–It’s probably best to think of fuel cells as a power storage (and potentially transport) technology more than a power source. By themselves they certainly can’t do the things solar can, for example, but they may prove very effective at helping make it possible (for example) to store solar energy during the day for use at night.

http://pip99.livejournal.com/ TechU

i think i still prefer the far better long term Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cells that take simple to make “distilled water” everywhere as their input fuel, rather than these
sodium silicide commercial higher priced running costs.

but alas the PEM units so far are very expensive initially to own for even a 100WATT self contained unit even though PEM are potentially far cheaper and simpler to run long term for mobile and static hand held devices

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.